Editorial: Bill C-30

by Herald Ed. Board

23 February 2012

By positioning C-30 as a heroic stand against child pornographers meaningful debate was immediately shut down.

A great deal has been said about Bill C-30, the inflammatorily named Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act this past week, and as an internet-based publication, the Herald would remiss if it did not add its two cents to the conversation. With more and more criminal activity occurring digitally, the basic logic of the bill is sound; however, the current iteration of Bill C-30 is unclear, and has the potential to infringe on civil liberties in a drastic fashion. Passing Bill C-30 without amendment would be a mistake

While not an issue of legislative substance, part of the issue with Bill C-30 has been the name, and the rhetoric surrounding the bill. By positioning C-30 as a heroic stand against child pornographers (shameful human beings though they may be) meaningful debate, of which there is plenty, was immediately shut down and replaced with immature stunts like the Vikileaks30 Twitter account.

In fact, even Conservative MPs like New Brunswick’s John Williamson have called C-30 “too intrusive.” The silver lining is that it appears the Conservatives will be considering significant amendments to the Bill C-30 because of the week’s backlash.

What should the amended version of Bill C-30 look like? We have a few suggestions:

Restrict access to any information covered by the bill to law enforcement officials. The sensitivity of the information certainly justifies the precaution and the current phrasing of the bill indicates that other government officials may have access to what ought to be private information.
Anything as sensitive as browsing history should be inaccessible without a warrant. If an IP address is the internet’s equivalent of a car’s licence plate, warrantless access seems justified. However, as demonstrated by the Ottawa Citizen’s own investigation of the Vikileaks30 Twitter account, an IP address can be easily used to determine a great deal of private information. The only way police should have warrantless access to IP addresses is with significant legal and technical safeguards to prevent potential abuse.
It is reasonable for Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to be required to retain subscriber information pending a warrant. However, significant limits need to be placed on the amount of time ISPs are required to retain the information. Limits should be determined based on both the cost to ISPs to store the data, and the amount of time police might require to obtain a warrant.

Outside of the actual content of Bill C-30, we would also like to see a much less opaque bill, with clearer definitions. The documents explaining the bill put out by Public Safety also read like talking points; understandable, given how the government communicates, but unacceptable given the serious implications of some of the less than clear points. For example, Public Safety claims the bill would “streamline the application process when court orders or warrants need to be issued.” It is unclear whether this means the removal of unnecessary bureaucracy, or of very necessary privacy measures. We at the Herald would like to know.

We’d also like your thoughts. Use the facebook comments below to let us know what you think should, or shouldn’t, be part of Bill C-30. All opinions (except those that side with child abusers) are welcome.

Featured »

LCBO strike is in no one’s interests

The looming LCBO strike threat has suddenly gotten all sorts of Ontarians anxious about a potentially dry next few days (or weeks).

The Prince Arthur Herald

Editorial: Bill C-30

by Herald Ed. Board

23 February 2012